Isidore Newman School Invitational
2017 — New Orleans, LA/US
Theresa Atkins Paradigm
Gina Biddick Paradigm
Edward Bowden Paradigm
Martene Campbell Paradigm
David Childree Paradigm
Alice Chipman Paradigm
Cassie Christensen Paradigm
Background: I debated policy, PF, and extemp at the Woodlands, TX on Houston local circuit. also picked up a few things following my best friend Abbey Chapman around on LD nat circuit for three years. Graduated from The Woodlands in 2015 and attended Loyola and University of Houston. I will be at Tulane in the spring. If you have any questions I didn't address below, please ask me before the round or at firstname.lastname@example.org
theory, k's, fw, plans etc are fine as long as they aren't super dense, but please keep in mind that running super technical and convoluted positions in front of me would not be strategic. if you're going to read theory, i default to a question of competing interps.
-speed is fine
-fine with speed in PF only if your opponents are ok with it
-try your best to be articulate; I will yell "clear" 2x before I dock speaks
-if you see me not flowing and just staring at you then I don't know what you're saying and you should probably slow down
-slow down on author names, tag lines, and technical positions.
-be very clear and tell me where to vote
-weigh your impacts well
-please keep your own time
-debate however is most comfortable for you
- don't tell me extinction, oppression etc is good i wont vote on it
-if you read a position that is potentially triggering please give trigger warnings. if you're not completely sure what you're reading necessitates a trigger warning just give one anyway. if someone in the room has an objection to your position the expectation is that the debater won't read that position and adjust accordingly. if you read a triggering position and don't give trigger warnings, I will dock speaker points and we both won't be happy
-i will drop u immediately if you're racist/sexist/homophobic/ in round
-i will tank ur speaks if you're clearly a more experienced debater mercilessly destroying a novice in round. no one likes to watch that. do not be that person who is spreading and reading 5 theory shells against a novice debater. im also probably not the judge u should be reading a lot of theory in front of anyways. If your opponent seems utterly lost in cx please try to continue to engage as much as possible. The worst rounds for me to sit in front of are rounds with no clash
Cole Emerson Paradigm
Warren Johnson Paradigm
I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.
Susan Kelly Paradigm
I have been judging Public Forum debate for around 4 years now.
Some speed is okay with me, but do not make it obnoxious. If you are speaking quickly make sure to make it clear when you are moving on to a different point so I can flow easily.
Make sure to extend clear voting issues into summaries. I like to see you narrow your focus as you go, bringing the most important impacts into final speeches rather than trying to extend everything. Extending specific cards without any explanation is too hard to follow and likely won't make it on my flow.
Marco Lorio Paradigm
Darin Maier Paradigm
Caveat: All this is how I think I judge debates. People who have had me in the back of the room may disagree with elements of this.
The SparkNotes Version:
1) The AFF's advocacy should endorse the resolution -- if you do that, I'll give you some room on method.
2) I default policymaker but will consider other approaches if well-articulated and explained in terms of why that approach is appropriate for this round.
3) I want in on any file sharing, but I'm only going to flow what you intelligibly articulate in the round. If it's not on my flow, you didn't say it, and I won't go to the speech doc to bail you out.
4) I lean truth over tech, reasonability over competing interpretations, substance over procedure, and usually find reciprocity to be a good starting point for evaluating theory, but I think these are all defaults and can be overcome.
5) I have no moral qualms with saying "I didn't vote for you because I didn't understand your argument." Making a cohesive argument out of your mass of cards is your job, not mine.
6) Don't be rude, don't falsify evidence, don't clip cards, and don't do other shady things. If you're doing "ins and outs", you'd be well-advised to notify everyone before the round begins (I have voted against a team who didn't because 2NR ran a theory objection). If it's shady enough, I may sign the ballot against you without the other team telling me to.
The “Actual Text” Version – but still trying to be somewhat succinct.
· The resolution – Full Disclosure: I serve on the NFHS Policy Topic Wording Committee and have attended the Topic Selection Meeting since 2011. Advocate for or against the resolution, and I’ll give you some leeway on exactly how you’re doing that (e.g. using your personal narrative as a DREAMer for immigration reform is a valid strategy, saying I should vote for you because you didn’t get Cocoa Puffs as a kid is not, and if you insist on doing the latter, you’d probably prefer striking me over taking that L).
· If you’re running electronic file sharing, I want to be in on the fun, but my flow will only reflect what you say in the round. Speed is generally okay but be clear – the third time I have to yell “clear”, I stop flowing. If it’s not on my flow, you didn’t say it and if it’s because you were unclear, I’m not going to the speech doc to bail you out. I’m about the content of what you say, but you have to say it in a way that is intelligible.
· Substance > procedure is the default, but if your opponent is being particularly egregious or shady and you explain why I have to use the ballot to take a stand, I’ll consider it, and I have voted on both theory and topicality.
· Your job is to make me understand the argument and why it matters in this debate so that if I vote against the other team, I can explain to them why they lost. Complicated arguments require thorough explanations. “Read our evidence, it’s on fire” is lazy debate, not a thorough explanation. While I am literate enough to understand kritiks like capitalism, feminism, intersectionality, anti-blackness and the like, if your kritik is based on some French dude whose name ends in four consecutive vowels who says a failure to adopt their method kills all value to life, you’d better have a good story.
· I try to decide the debate in the least interventionist way possible, unless some bad behavior is taking place. I’ll read cards if I must, but only those I need. If you ask me to read evidence, you’re giving me a tacit invitation to intervene.
· Whether it’s performance versus counter-performance, a policy AFF that claims the right to weigh itself against a K, a well-structured and developed T debate, or an old school AFF versus case arguments and a DA, good debate is good debate. If you’re giving me defensible reasons why the resolution should be endorsed or rejected, I’m pretty likely to be down with that.
· Because I judge on a few different circuits, I don't list a point scale, but try to adapt to whatever the particular tournament I am at is using.
· Things that will cost you speaker points or the round:
a. Rudeness – it will definitely hurt your speaks, enough rudeness makes me either actively look for a way to give you the L or just decide that you’re getting the L because I like to make rude people mad at me.
b. Gratuitous profanity – if a “damn” or “hell” slips out during a frantic 1AR or you’re including a curse word that is essential to the context of evidence you’re reading, that’s okay. Six f-bombs in a 40 second span is something else.
c. Racist/homophobic/sexist language or behavior
d. Falsifying evidence – if I’m pretty sure it’s been done, I will act on this one unilaterally
e. Clipping cards – if I’m pretty sure it’s being done intentionally, I will act on this one unilaterally.
Laura Ratliff Paradigm
Azriela Reed Paradigm
This will be my second year judging. I provide research for public policy. I would rather a student use an off topic factually supported argument than something completely false and made up. Use of evidence and impact hold the most weight in my post debate calculations. Good luck to all teams.
Wayne Selogy Paradigm
Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).
Jay Stubbs Paradigm
Name: Jay Stubbs
School Affiliation: Bellaire High School
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp
What is your current occupation? Debate Coach
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.
Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.
Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.
Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.
Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.
Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.
Michele Werner Paradigm
I will be flowing your cases. For LD, I will be looking to see how well you uphold your value. If the value is the same on both sides, I will be weighing your criterion more.
Weigh your arguments, especially in final focus.
I don't mind fast delivery, but I don't appreciate spreading. If I can't understand you, I will sit back in my chair and fold my arms. This is your signal that I am not flowing your case because you cannot be understood. You will have a hard time getting my vote if I could not flow your case due to unintelligible speech.
I expect to hear well-developed pro and con cases about the resolution. If you decide to run theory, I will expect it to be cleverly tied back to the resolution and make sense.
I expect to hear each side rebut all of the other side's arguments.
I have been judging all events (IE, Debate, Congress) for 4 years. I judge at our local tournaments, at Blue Key, at Isidore Newman, and at State.